Celeron 3765U vs Phenom II X2 B57

Celeron 3765U vs Phenom II X2 B57 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 3765U

2 / 2

1,252

0.0%

1,260

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron 3765U vs Phenom II X2 B57 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron 3765U vs Phenom II X2 B57: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 3765U

2015

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Broadwell), while Phenom II X2 B57 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Phenom II X2 B57 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,252 vs 1,260).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 6 MB).
❌540% higher power demand at 512W vs 80W.

Phenom II X2 B57

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 80W instead of 512W, a 432W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 3765U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Phenom II X2 B57 better than Celeron 3765U?

Yes. Phenom II X2 B57 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Phenom II X2 B57 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.0% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Phenom II X2 B57 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 2 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Phenom II X2 B57 still makes the most sense overall. Phenom II X2 B57 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 3765U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 3765U vs Phenom II X2 B57 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron 3765U

The Celeron 3765U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,252 points. Launch price was $107.

Phenom II X2 B57

The Phenom II X2 B57 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Callisto (2009−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,260 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3765U and Phenom II X2 B57 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Celeron 3765U versus 3.2 GHz on the Phenom II X2 B57 — a 51% clock advantage for the Phenom II X2 B57 (base: 1.9 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Celeron 3765U uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Phenom II X2 B57 uses Callisto (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3765U scores 1,252 against the Phenom II X2 B57's 1,260 — a 0.6% lead for the Phenom II X2 B57. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 3765U vs 6 MB (total) on the Phenom II X2 B57.

Feature	Celeron 3765U	Phenom II X2 B57
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+68%
Base Clock	1.9 GHz	3.2 GHz+68%
L3 Cache	2 MB	6 MB (total)+200%
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	Callisto (2009−2010)
PassMark	1,252	1,260

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3765U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Phenom II X2 B57 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 3765U	Phenom II X2 B57
Socket	FCBGA1168	AM3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	12	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3765U) / not specified (Phenom II X2 B57). The Celeron 3765U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Phenom II X2 B57 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3765U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3765U rivals Pentium 3825U.